Tiruvarur
Temple Inscriptions

INTRODUCTION

Of Nos. 205, 217, 244, 540, 583, 585, 587 and 588 dated in the reign of
Rajadhiraja II only three give full details of date.No.244 from Melsevur in the South Arcot District, is dated in
the 13th regnal year of the king.The details given, viz., Karkataka 13, ba. 11, Rohini and
Wednesday, do not admit of easy verification in spite of their
completeness.If we take
March 1163 A.D., as the date of the king’s accession, the details may
correspond to 1175 A.D., July 15, Tuesday (not Wednesday), in which case
it will be Karkataka 19 and not 13 as mentioned in words in the record.
If 1166 A.D. is taken as the date of his accession, the date may
correspond to 1178 A.D., July 2, Monday. No. 540 from Vedaranyam is
dated in the year 14, Mithuna ba. 5, Wednesday, Sodi (Svati). The
combination of ba. 5 and Svati is impossible in the month of Mithuna and
even if it is taken as a mistake for Mina, the date appears to be
irregular. Another date available with details for the 2nd
year of the reign from No. 583 well corresponds to 1168 A.D., April 15,
Monday, thus yielding some day in 1166 A.D., as the date of the king’s
accession. This inscription records a grant of land by
Palaiyanur-udaiyan Vedavanam-udaiyan Ammai-Appan alias
Rajaraja-Vilupparaiyan of Menmalai-ppalaiyanur-nadu. The officer is
evidently identical with one of the same name, but with the title
Pallavarayan (Pallavarajan) who figures in the Pallavarayanpettai
inscription[1][15] and two other records of the
same king from Tiruvarur (Nos. 585 and 587). The title
Rajaraja-Vilupparaiyan in this record indicates clearly that this
officer had served under Rajaraja II and continued to serve also
Rajadhiraja II. It is possible that he assumed the title Pallavarayan
after the death of Tiruchchirrambalamudaiyan Perumal Nambi aliasPallavarayan who held a very high office during the days of
Rajaraja II and Rajadhiraja II. That Vedavanam-udaiyan Ammai-Appan
Pallavarayan might have continued to serve also Kulottunga III seems to
be indicated by No. 582 from the same place. This possibility is
strengthened by the fact that this officer continued to carry out the
commissions assigned to his predecessor in the office of Pallavarayar,
especially in relation to the campaign against the Singhalese in the
course of the Pandyan cilvil war.

Of
the two records from Tiruvarur mentioned above, No. 585 is dated in the
10th year and the details given, viz.,., Mina su. 13,
Tuesday, Magha, yield two equivalents one corresponding to 1173 A.D.,
February 27, Tuesday, and the other to 1176 A.D., February 24, Tuesday.
This inscription which commences with the prasasti (Kadal sulnda parelum,
etc.,) of Rajadhiraja II affords a variant from the 5th line
up to which it resembles the prasasti of his predecessor Rajaraja II.Line 5 describeshow
the queens were given royal honors with the king and continues to
describe one of the queans as ‘the jeweled lamp to the Chola race, that
appeared from the Yadava stock’. The contemporary ruling family that
belonged to the Yadava stock was evidently that of the Hoysalas, with
whom the Cholas might have had some marital connections[2][16] The inscription then proceeds
to describe the queen consort in glowing terms. It says that she enjoyed
the rights of kingship in full by being crowned with the king[3][17]. It is further stated that
she ruled from the following places in the order, viz., Uraiyur,
Peruragai (?), Udakai, and Madhurapuri.[4][18]She is also given the title Ulagudai Mukkokkilanadigal. The
description of a queen consort as found in this record is not ordinarily
met with in any prasastiof
the Cholas or even of the Pandyas.

No.
593 from Tiruvarur in the Tanjore district records that, while the god
Vidividangadevar of Tiruvarur was pleased to be seated in the pavilion
of Devasriyan,[5][19] he witnessed a dance
performance by Pungoyil[6][20]-nayaka-ttalaikkoil[7][21] and afterwards orally ordered
the grant of land in Vayarrur, a brahmadeya, as kani to Pungoyil Nambi
who composed a poem called Viranukkavijayam in honor of Nammakkal
Virasola anukkar. The order was passed through the kelvi(i.e., at the instance of ) Tyagavinodakkadigaimarayan (Ghatikamaharaja)[8][22].The inscription does notmention
the king’s name but is dated in the 13th year and 202nd
day.It may be
paleographically assigned to the 12th or 13th
century.

Mention
is made of a market place at Tanjavur called Tribhuvanamadevi-perangadi
after a queen of Rajaraj, in No.24 of the 2nd year of
Parakaesari.A member of a
regiment known as Arumolideva-terinda-Kaikkolar figures as a donor in
another inscription of the same year from Tiruppalanama (No. 29) Vanavan
Peraraiyanalias Korran
Arumoli (No. 73), Rajendrasola-Muvendavelar (No. 43) and Sandirasan (Chandraditya)
Satturugandan of Varampursal (No. 248) are other persons of some note in
this reign.The last
mentioned is referred to as having the menayakam administration over the
Tiraimur-nadu.An inscription of the 6th year of Parakesari
from Tiruvarur (No. 158) probably of this period, registers a gift of
gold entrusted to the Nagarattar of the place by one Devan
Arubattunavalan, for burning a lamp before the image of Tiruvaraneri
Mahadeva-Bhattaraka in the temple.The
name of the deity is reminiscent of the legendary Chola king
Manuniti-Chola associated with Tiruvarur.

[4][18]It may be noted here that we do not come across instances
where the queens or the princesses of the ruling family governed
from secondary capital cities of the kingdom in the Tamil country as
in Karnataka where women of the royal family ruled as governors in
distant provinces.However it may be added that a Rashtrakuta princess
Akkaiyadevi ruled over an area around Siyamangalam in the North
Arcot district (S.I.I.,Vol.
VII, NO. 75) in the tenth century.

[5][19]Devasriyan is the name of a hall in the temple at Tiruvarur,
where the celestial beings are considered to be waiting for the
favour of the Saiva devotees.Cf.Periyapuranam,Taduttatkondapuranam,
verse 137.

[6][20]Pungoyil is the name of the temple of Tyagarajasvamin at
Tiruvarur.The dancing
woman and the Nambi were probably attached to the temple and
therefore were called so.Cf.Op.cit., verse
136, and TK. Colasby
Prof. K.A.N. Sastri, p. 644.

[7][21]Another dancing woman Pukkaturai-vallava-talaikkoli is
stated to have performed a dance before the god at Devasriyan.Talaikkoli is a title ordinarily assumed by dancing women
initiated into the profession See Kalaikkalanjiyam, Vol. VI, p. 341.

[8][22]Prof. Sastri’s interpretation of the word nammakkal as a
feudatory is not correct, even though he has emended the reading
nammagan as given in the Annaul Report for 1905, to nammakkal in the
second edition of his work (p. 664).